Dismissed

Hardip Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Mar 2012CWP/3925/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition for quashing the forfeiture of a security deposit in a cattle fare contract auction. The court held that the forfeiture involved disputed questions of fact regarding the petitioner's compliance with auction conditions and dismissed the petition without hearing.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by relegating the petitioner to avail alternative remedies.

Hardip Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No. 3925 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 3925 of 2012

¶5

Date of Decision: 1.3.2012

Hardip Kaur

....Petitioner.

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶10

...Respondents.

¶11

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.

¶12

PRESENT: Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

¶14

The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of order dated 20.5.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.2 whereby the entire security amount of Rs.9 lacs deposited by her for taking the contract of cattle fare held on 30.6.2006 for the year 2006-07 has been forfeited.

¶15

According to the averments made in the petition, auction of cattle fare was held by respondent No.3 on 30.6.2006 for the year 200607 with the reserve price of Rs.1.65 crores in which the petitioner had participated and the bid of the petitioner was for Rs.3.25 crores. The bid of the petitioner was accepted by respondent No.2 and the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.9 lacs as security and advance of auction money. The petitioner thereafter on 10.4.2006 approached the

¶16

CWP No. 3925 of 2012 -2-

¶17

respondents to withdraw herself from the auction in question. The petitioner served a notice of demand on 25.11.2008 upon respondent No.3 to refund the security amount and when no decision was taken thereon, the petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No. 3102 of 2009. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 27.2.2009 directing the respondents to take cognizance of the notice of demand by passing a reasoned order. In pursuance thereto, order dated 20.5.2009 (Annexure P-6) was passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Now, the petitioner has impugned the said order by way of instant writ petition.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order, Annexure P-6, was bad as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. It was further urged that the forfeiture was ordered without any fault of the petitioner.

¶20

A perusal of the order, Annexure P-6, shows that as per the conditions of auction, the successful bidder was required to deposit 5% amount of the bid amount at the end of the auction proceedings and the petitioner had deposited only Rs.9 lacs instead of Rs.16.25 lacs as required under the auction notice. It was failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with the condition of auction that Rs.9 lacs deposited by her in terms of auction notice were forfeited. The said fact is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the issue raised herein involves disputed questions of fact relating to whether there was any fault on the part of the petitioner or not.

¶21

CWP No. 3925 of 2012

¶22

-3-

¶23

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of by relegating the petitioner to avail alternative remedies, if any, available to her in accordance with law for redressal of her grievance.

¶24

March 1, 2012 gbs

¶25

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

Hardip Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardip Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gagandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sukhjinder Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Punjab State Electricity Board Vs Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat & Another

Satpal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Nafe Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Amarjit Bajaj Vs Ombudsman for Elec. Pb. & Ors.